Read-only archive of the Armageddon Games Forums Archive (2000–2026) · About this archive
Armageddon Games Forums Archive

How far this country has gone in the wrong direction (Also 2k)

12 replies · 2,640 views · Started 12 October 2003

Ultra22Lemming 12 Oct 2003, 17:30

Well this is my 2000th post and instead of making of thread that just says, "WOOT!! THIS IS MY 2K POST!!!" I decided to actually combine it with something.

I got this e-mail about a month ago:

"It has always been the custom at
Roane County High School football
games, to say a prayer and play the
National Anthem, to honor God and
Country."

Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme
Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is
a violation of Federal Case Law. As I
understand the law at this time, I can
use this public facility to approve of
sexual perversion and call it "an
alternate lifestyle," and if someone is
offended, that's OK.

I can use it to condone sexual
promiscuity, by dispensing condoms
and calling it, "safe sex." If someone is
offended, that's OK.

I can even use this public facility to
present the merits of killing an unborn
baby as a "viable means of birth
control." If someone is offended, no
problem.

I can designate a school day as "Earth
Day" and involve students in activities
to worship religiously and praise the
goddess "Mother Earth" and call it
"ecology."

I can use literature, videos and
presentations in the classroom that depict
people with strong, traditional Christian
convictions as "simple minded" and
"ignorant" and call it "enlightenment."

However, if anyone uses this facility to
honor God and to ask Him to bless this
event with safety and good
sportsmanship, then Federal Case Law is
violated.

This appears to be inconsistent at
best, and at worst, diabolical.
Apparently, we are to be tolerant of
everything and anyone, except God
and His Commandments.

Nevertheless, as a school principal, I
frequently ask staff and students to
abide by rules with which they do not
necessarily agree. For me to do
otherwise would be inconsistent at
best, and at worst, hypocritical. I suffer
from that affliction enough
unintentionally. I certainly do not need
to add an intentional transgression.

For this reason, I shall "Render unto
Caesar that which is
Caesar's," and refrain from praying at
this time.

"However, if you feel inspired to
honor, praise and thank God and ask
Him, in the name of Jesus, to bless
this event, please feel free to do so.
As far as I know, that's not against the
law----yet."

One by one, the people in the
stands bowed their heads, held hands
with one another and began to pray.

They prayed in the stands. They
prayed in the team huddles. They
prayed at the concession stand and
they prayed in the Announcer's Box!

The only place they didn't pray was in
the Supreme Court of the United
States of America - the Seat of
"Justice" in the "one nation, under
God."

Somehow, Kingston, Tennessee
remembered what so many have
forgotten. We are given the Freedom
OF Religion, not the Freedom FROM
Religion. Praise God that His remnant
remains!

Celebrate Jesus in 2003!

carrot red 12 Oct 2003, 21:34

Yeah, if you scroll down a little bit, you might find Forum Games. Start posting, you Ryo-Ohki lover. :evil:

Well done, U22L. : )

Ultra22Lemming 13 Oct 2003, 16:39

I like my aDvatar also, I'm glad you guys like it cause I just changed it a day or two ago.

For about three months I have had only 10 more posts till 2000 but I haven't gotten on AGN for three months to do it. Hopefully I will be more active at AGN from now until June (the same thing happened last year; I didn't go into AGN the whole summer, the weird thing is, I HATE the outdoors, so it can't be the sun that's causing this ...)

Mitsukara 13 Oct 2003, 17:45

Even if they stated it a little zealously (a "goddess called mother earth"? that seems a little harsh), that person has a very good point. Christianity might offend some people, but it goes against the ideals of freedom and rights that this country is supposed to be so famous for to try to force people to keep it private. I mean, as long as you don't make others believe what you believe, and your beliefs don't call you to actually hurt someone else, what's the harm in them, or in expressing them as you feel you need to? At the very least, you should be given the option to pray in public as you wish, not be shunned for it. I mean, it's not like you're running up and stabbing someone in the face; I mean, from atheist's point of view, you're just talking, so who cares? I know it's more to that to christians, but it's not really to those who don't believe in it, so why get upset about it? Just leave them be.

Your avatar looks very nice, U22l. It'll be nice to see you around sometimes...

I don't mean to be rude, but I kind of have a couple questions about this thread... what do you mean by aDvatar? And, um...

...the weird thing is, I HAVE the outdoors,...

Did you mean HATE the outdoors? I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude or correct typos, but I'm not really quite sure if that's what you meant or not.

TheGeepster 13 Oct 2003, 18:19

Most of the Christians I know understand that a person's faith is something only they can decide.

So even those Christians who are evangelical in nature will accept another person's decision not to believe as they do. So perhaps most of this notion that we're trying to force our belief on others is mostly imagined.

Perhaps this is all based on some silly notion that a person has a right not to hear anything which they disagree with, that a person has a right not to be offended.

Might I add, too (for the anti-religious folk out there), that religion is a key part of one's life. For religion to mean much, it has to be more than something you go to on Sunday, then leave at the building. So that religion is not some island unto itself, an addendum to normal life that ought to stay somewhere away from the everyday. Rather it ought to be a part of everything you do.

Axel 13 Oct 2003, 18:42

is there any point in my breaking up this party and break the cycle of your congratulating yourselves on the fact that any member of your camp could get so pointlessly pissed off? Yes there is.
You may love how the author takes so much time to insult the Supreme Court and its ruling, however it might be to your advantage to look again. He takes the time to express his views on many other points. He shows that he holds conservationalism in utter contempt and has no respect for the environment. He shows that he despises the concept of gay rights. He tells us that he thinks the only religion in the US is Christianity and anyone who doesn't openly love it must be an atheist. He holds atheism in utter contempt.

Mitsukara 13 Oct 2003, 19:10

Well, I wasn't really agreeing with the guy's point of view, per se, I'm just saying he did have a good point. As I said, he seems a bit harsh in his attack on the other subjects he mentions.

By the way, Axel, just so you know, I'm not really a christian, per se... I don't really hold any specific beliefs right now. But I think other people do have their right to theirs, just as long as they do not directly harm other people or force them to agree with their point of view.

TheGeepster 13 Oct 2003, 19:18

Methinks you read too much into it, Axel.

Let's examine this in detail shall we?

The reference to "sexual perversion" shows that the author believes in the tradition monogamous, heterosexual concept.

I agree with him on that notion. I find those who would actively rub their alternate lifestyle in my face to be highly offensive, and would be upset if they did so in a government sponsored environment.

I consider the fetus to be a dinstinct lifeform and not something to destroy just to avoid an incovenience, and so the author's point on abortion is also ok with me.

His reference to the worship of Mother Earth seems to sugest that many in the field of ecology do treat this planet and animal life as a god, worthy to be served. To speak out against this notion does not mean that we ought not try to take the best care of our resources as possible, nor does the author suggest we ought not conserve.

The author points out where Christians are protrayed in a negative light in stereotypical fashion, whilst they are not allowed to point out their positives in the same venue. Were this to be done against a minority group, imagine the wrath of the special interest groups.

Then the author points out that a mere vocal request to God in the same venue as these examples of things which are offensive to some is considered illegal.

The author questions the consistency of the court which tells him this, then acquiesces to the demand of the courts.

But in doing so, he points out that the students, as far as he knows, are quite free to pray to God if they wish. And then points out the large number of students who choose to.

There is no mandate that they should, only that, as far as he knows, they still can.

So where is conservatism held in contempt?
Where is the indiciation that good environmental policy is a bad thing?
Where is it hinted that one is either Christian or atheist?

He thinks very little of atheist, very true. It's the same with me. Does it make sense for one with a belief in God to lift up as equal the idea that there isn't? Not all ideas are equal, and it's lunacy to suggest it. Although I will continue to respect the fact that you hold the idea of atheism as being higher than any theism.

What does gay rights mean anyways?

(What they seek, in my opinion is not so much rights, as they are seeking official approval for their choice of lifestyle. There is nothing to prevent a gay couple from living together, and behaving in whatever manner they like. Some companies do provide benefits to live-in partners, and there is nothing in the law books to prevent them from doing so.)

Ultra22Lemming 13 Oct 2003, 19:57

Originally posted by Jennifer
Your avatar looks very nice, U22l. It'll be nice to see you around sometimes...

Thank you Jennifer 😃


I don't mean to be rude, but I kind of have a couple questions about this thread... what do you mean by aDvatar?

Well When I joined here I was 11 years of age. Yes I did misspell words a lot (and I still do). I used to spell the word 'avatar' with a 'd' so it became 'advatar'. I kept saying this until someone finally told me I was spelling it wrong. After this I decided to make it a trademark of mine. So from that day forward I have always said advatar. Another trademark of mine is when it's someone's birthday I say happy d-day instead of b-day (I made this when up when I made a typo on Breaker's birthday ... hehe)


Ultra22Lemming: ...the weird thing is, I HAVE the outdoors,...

Did you mean HATE the outdoors? I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude or correct typos, but I'm not really quite sure if that's what you meant or not. [/B]

What are you talking about it did say hate .... :laughing:

fatcatfan 13 Oct 2003, 20:02

Originally posted by Axel
He shows that he holds conservationalism in utter contempt and has no respect for the environment.
Where? He demonstrates that he is offended by quasi-religious worship of the creation rather than the creator. That does not mean he thinks dumping oil in the ocean is good idea. You make quantum leaps to conclusions, Captain Archer.
He shows that he despises the concept of gay rights
Where? He never said that gays should stay locked away in their homes and not give any visible sign of homosexuality in public. That's what Christians are being told they must do.
He tells us that he thinks the only religion in the US is Christianity and anyone who doesn't openly love it must be an atheist. He holds atheism in utter contempt.
And that's an even bigger stretch. But what if he is? Is it somehow evil to disapprove of atheism? He isn't talking about oppressing them. He's isn't telling athiests they cannot freely practice atheism in public. Of all the people in the world, athiests should care the least about public prayer, because to them it is just meaningless words to a non-existant god. Why does that offend you so? If someone were actually oppressing you by saying a prayer in school, I might see your point, but you are just so far off. The only people having their Constitutionally guaranteed rights infringed are those who wish to practice religion freely.